Like Perelman, regrets division of reasoning into rational and irrational, logical and rhetorical. Both try to discover the rationality of arguments about value in law, aesthetics, morals, and politics. Toulmin includes the sciences as well.
For both Toulmin and Perelman, knowledge is the product of argument, which therefore deserves the attention of philosophers
Evolution, not revolution
claim, data, warrant, qualifier
amorality of argument – the logic itself leads to the correct conclusion
acknowledges varience, field, context, choice – certain fields have warrants and usually only people in that field understand them (genre?? – field dependency of arguments)
Asserts that formal logic should not be regarded as superior to probabilistic argument in establishing truth. Rejects both absolutist and relativist standards frationality. Absolutism=external standards of truth must be only grounds of knowledge. Relativism= assumes there are no standards at all. Seeks a middle ground.
A structure of arguments applies across fields – claim based on data, modified by certain qualifications, and conditions. Nature of claims, data, and qualifications is based on field or context in which argument is advanced.
The force of the argument is a question of its persuasiveness, not the perfection of the structure
Calls it neither rhetoric nor argument but practical reasoning (avoids rhetoric on purpose). He was writing in HIS field
“truth” is a social phenomenon, depended on the criteria developed by a community for determining what it will believe (echos of Vico?)
Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument 1958